No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

13 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)

    …effect. That OCF had direct knowledge of the hazardous nature of asbestos was evident in 1941, when one of the lawyers in its Legal and Patent Department, having received a letter from a Saranac Doctor, expressed…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 11, 2020 · in the opinion

    Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc. (2020)

    …present. And Ms. Olson's strong and immediate reaction to hearing about a possible connection between talcum powder and cancer suggests otherwise. The First Department decisions J&J cites are not to the contrary. In Sosna…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    Flintkote's argument that this procedure provides a double recovery for inflation was rejected after thorough attention by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Fourth Department, in Brown v. State, 184 A.D…

  4. Court case · Nebraska Supreme Court · June 1, 2007 · in the opinion

    Olivotto v. DeMarco Bros. Co. (2007)

    …on October 9, 1998, when she suffered a reaction to latex that required her to seek emergency medical treatment. She had noticed symptoms later associated with an allergy to latex in the 1980's, but the…

  5. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 31, 2012 · in the opinion

    Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corporation (2012)

    …in the report are already known and have been published in other studies on asbestos, no unfavorable reaction need be anticipated. I think the idea of reviewing the manuscript prior to publication is a good one…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 11, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …In other words, the study found that a person could be exposed to a cumulative annual exposure of up to between 208 and 415 fibers per cubic centimeter before experiencing an observable adverse reaction. (See June…

  7. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · November 15, 1994 · in the opinion

    Becker v. Baron Bros. (1994)

    …motions, the court stated that its basis for ruling that asbestos products without warnings are defective as a matter of law was "pretty much \ \ \ judicial gut reaction and instinct as well as Beshada." On appeal, the…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · September 26, 2024 · in the opinion

    Smargisso v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)

    …the testimony is not unfairly prejudicial or confusing. Warren is free to cross-examine Orton at trial about his initial reaction when asked about Warren by Warren's counsel, as compared to his later answers when…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …of cases which involve substantially the same questions of fact, as happens when large numbers of plaintiffs allege that they have developed similar illnesses in reaction to a particular toxic substance. See Fed.R.Civ.P…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · July 18, 1984 · in the opinion

    Laster v. Celotex Corp. (1984)

    …ed., 3d ed. 1984) (asbestos "dust particles must be less than 100 micra in size" to be inhaled); Califano, Appendix to Asbestos Law: Victim's Rights and Industry Reaction, 330 Annals N.Y. Acad.Sci. 266…

  11. Court case · California Supreme Court · August 18, 1997 · in the opinion

    Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997)

    …or inhalation of asbestos fibers, because many who are exposed will never suffer a compensable injury. Neither would a nondetrimental physiological reaction to asbestos exposure constitute accrual. On the other hand, under this definition a cause…

  12. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 22, 2013 · in the opinion

    Macek v. CBS Corporation (2013)

    …Plaintiffs' exhibit 20 is a 1966 study commissioned by UCC revealing that rats had a more "severe reaction" to Calidria asbestos mined by UCC in California as compared to asbestos mined in Canada by Johns Manville…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · June 15, 1998 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (In Re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos, 1998)

    …1979). As indicated, all plaintiffs differ. That there exists an infinite variety of people who will experience different reactions to similar tragedies further compounds the difficulty of quantifying a reasonable verdict. See Geressy, 980 F.Supp…